[205] But now, there is a dimension in which this whole discussion is transcended, and here the problem of ultimate concern comes into the picture. Naturalism^a doesn't see that there is a dimension of the essential over against what actually is. That's the reason why I said medieval realism ^bis very much the same as what today is called idealism^c. Naturalism is monistic in its tendencies: everything is nature. But if everything is nature, the fundamental distinction between what is essential and what is a matter of existence OVER AGAINST the essential, is forgotten. And the extreme of this are some types of existentialism^d where consciously and directly the element [of] the essence is removed. Here we are in a realm where THEOLOGICAL implications and dimensions become visible. And now naturalism^e and existentialism^f ANSWER the idealistic ^gcriticism and say: "But what YOU say about MAN is NOT the reality of man. Man is surrendered to existential distortion. You blind the eye of people toward the real predicament of man^h. You don’t allow to see that man HAS a predicament." Now these discussions cease to be in the inner-philosophical realm; they reach the theological dimension. And the decisive thing we must do, which is always to be done again---and what l give you here is not a medical prescription: you cannot apply it, simply, but you can use it perhaps in such discussions in order to show where the dimension of the ultimate ⁱcomes into the picture UNCONSCIOUSLY in both groups. I know that in many theological groups idealism^j is almost identified with religion. If this happens, I take, almost unambiguously, the side of naturalism^k and